The fun thing about the video for me is that the quad did the mission three times in a row and landed just about the same spot every time. If you listen you can tell I don't like to get cold while flying.Larry

Thanks for the video...

What's the deal with all this "white stuff" - we currently have 24C/80F here is San Diego. They call this "winter" here in SoCal. Of course, people are still in flip-flops, but in down-jackets - because it is winter!

Using an AutoQuad 6, AutoQuad PDB 1.4 prototype and esc32v3 prototypes running the Quatos adaptive controller. This test was done to test the redundancy on an x8 coax multicopter and hopefully with more than one motor failure.Some code changes for inflight shutting down motors on the can bus.The quatos motor output table is increased to get a more crispy and powerful output. Because the frame was intended to use a m4 instead of an aq6 the magnetic calibration was not done (yet) and only a tare was done.

Anyway.. very pleased with the results. Every (pid) x8 can have a motor out, but the adaptive controller reacts and adapts so fast that even flying with 2 motors out was very easy. It even worked with 3 motors out but keeping altitude was difficult. Probably the motor output was capped due to the output table.

@Marcus: nah, just good in post video processing . This was really great to do, it really increases the safety of the multirotor in this compact x8 configuration.

@Christof, I'm waiting on my replacement M4 that will be the intended FC and than I publish a build log. It's kinda great for the new product showcase because it has everything new what AQ can offer: PDB, esc32v3, m4 and everything by CAN. The only wires to the FC in this case are the power, the receiver and CAN.

@Norbert, I a couple of guys watching this on the field and when the second motor did shut down there was a lot of 'no way!!'

My X8 flew fine with any are all of the top motors removed, the X8 format stability impressed me but I still wish the efficiency issue could be improved. I would guess a well built machine would save enough weight with out having the other 4 booms to mitigate a good portion of the loss because of weight saved.

Does anyone have a X8 and Octo with the same motors and props to compare weight?

I wish someone would would build a 2 engine combination in a coaxial contra-rotating configuration to place the props close enough together so the loss we see now could actually be a gain. Somebody needs to figure out how to solve the probable loss of Yaw control.

It would also keep from having that set of propellers sitting so low which is really my only objection as reduced flight timeis something you just live with, appreciating the redundancy that you gain.

Great demos guys! With enough power, I don't see why a full-sized couldn't fly with one motor of each pair being out. Depending on how the yaw balances out I suppose. Can it fly with both motors on one arm out, though?

Steve, how are you driving the extra 4 motors? Parallel pairs from onboard motor drivers, or you have extra ESCs and all that?